...wait a second. They complain about Windows being too bulky, and then say virtualization is the way forward?

Yeah, I missed that one as well! Virtualisation has a lot of benefits, but reduced complexity isn't necessarily one of them!

I guess what they're trying to say is that Windows should have a minimal, super-efficient, bulletproof kernel, which interfaces directly with the hardware and does the lowest level stuff like basic file I/O, bootstrapping drivers, talking to peripherals etc., and then have Windows sitting on top of that (presumably as a bundle of different modules). It's essentially another layer of OS, which could be called a virtualisation layer. The kernel/modules approach means you only load what you need, you have much tighter control over which applications can do what, you can terminate individual modules (e.g. if they crash) without bringing the whole OS down, and upgrading individual modules becomes much easier, often not even requiring a reboot. This is what GNU/Linux does, and if MS could replicate the same model with the familiarity of Windows, it would be fantastic.

Well if it did collapse under its own weight it would be a very slow death, I can see Microsoft releasing a core windows , in much the same way as you have basic , home premium, Ultimate , but with windows core and every additional feature you want would be an add on. Windows is only bloaty because it has a lot of things it has to try and work with.

Windows is only bloaty because it has a lot of things it has to try and work with.

Bingo. Windows is expected to work with everything, flawlessly, which leads to the great majority of its problems. I'm not sure what the solution is (I'd be rich if I did), but it will probably require MSoft to relax their stranglehold on consumer's use of their product. That'll be their downfall, if anything.

Personally, I'd love to see the above suggestion of a Linux-style kernel with various modules that can run on top of it to suit preferences and hardware. MSoft could do fantastically well if they made the kernel open-source, and then only sold the modules - it might hurt their monopoly, but enough people are addicted to the Windows look/feel that I'm guessing they'd do just fine.

Windows, or Mac OSX for that matter, should be an OS. Period. Provide a common GUI and a way for apps and devices to communicate with each other.

Then, all the Media players and interfaces, apps, web browsers, etc. should each be completely stand alone. The separate "apps" should live and die on their own merits. The more crap they bundle just makes the OS seem bloated and most of this bundled stuff eventually becomes part of the core OS when there is no need to do so.

Admittedly, an option to not install the parts you will never use (IE) on setup would be nice. But I've always found Windows to be a comfortable environment where everything works and where you don't need to be a programmer to install stuff.

I don't think we can guess the future of Windows based on our current view of the computer world. It will change in due course, as will other OS's and the hardware we run them on.

They definitely need to innovate to stay alive, another "vista" will kill them.

I think overall MS needs to find it's identity again. Meaning drop the Zune, drop your efforts to beat Google at search, stop anything that isnt making software that lets people use a computer, whether a desktop, laptop, smart phone etc. That is how MS became so big, but now they are bloated trying to be like everyone else and failing at all of it in the end. Vista to me is the end product of their star software not getting the development it deserved, resulting in a prettier XP that no on who knows better will fork over money for the "upgrade". You know there is a problem when even your OEMs start offering XP again.

I'm an XP fan, and I'll never change over to Vista unless performance was better or stayed the same. They were so concerned with the look (compared to OSX) that they cluttered their GUI.
How hard is it to continue the greatness of the XP OS, and improve it to make a more stable, high performing, and clean system?

Well just like WIndows ME, a total mess. Maybe MS will wise up and make a cleaner low profile OS. I hate to say this but Apple has it down when they make incremental changes to their OS. The look is generally the small, but with improved features. (NO A DOWNGRADE)

Anyway, I don't hope for MS to fall. I just want them to retrograde. Just return to the greatness of XP

Maybe MS will wise up and make a cleaner low profile OS. I hate to say this but Apple has it down when they make incremental changes to their OS. The look is generally the small, but with improved features. (NO A DOWNGRADE)

Well how about Apple have to write for a TINY amount of hardware, compared to Microsoft who have to wrtie software for a MASSIVE amount of hardware, so they will be issues

I use Vista, and I love it, even at work now, using Vista, XP for me now is just a step back in the way things work. I have also tried Ubuntu Linux, however after the devs failing to fix a problem over the last 3 versions, I really cant be arsed with installing it, then bodging it to make it work, its things like that that will prevent Linux going fully mainstream.

Of course if they ever manage to port DirectX to Linux and game devs make games work on Linux then I would look at swapping over, but until then I will happily stick with my Vista, IE7 and Office 2007

"Hey Ted, I told you to be done Windows 56 by Thursday. We need to get it out the door by next week, so we can have Windows 57 ready for next month!"

What does he expect? If anything, I would prefer a LONGER development time, if that means bug-checking and getting all the kinks out.

Personally, I've played with Vista on my mom's laptop, and I love it. It's very sleek, and it runs well if you don't have ancient hardware. (her laptop isn't even that great; move forward already guys, this stuffs improving quick). I still love XP because I know what I'm doing on it having used it for years, but I still am quite attached to Vista.

I'm going to install both XP and Vista on my new computer to do a performance comparison in the games I play. I'm guessing the difference will be neglible, especially if I tweak Vista a little to eliminate some bloat. I really don't think it deserves half the hate it's getting...
I kinda like Vista, although admitedIy wouldn't bother with it if they had released dx10 for XP.

Provide a common GUI and a way for apps and devices to communicate with each other. Then, all the Media players and interfaces, apps, web browsers, etc. should each be completely stand alone.

Exactly right. Some obvious proggies,

Internet Explorer: Nope - Firefox

Windows Media Player: Nope - Winamp

Outlook Express: Nope - Firefox/gmail

Windows Messenger: Nope - Digsby

Infact, looking at my start menu, there are tonnes of Windows applications sitting there, waiting to be used, that are never used! Needless to say, thanks to Windows and it's bloat, I now enjoy Nliting my install disc as a regular hobby.

I'm quite happy with my 64 bit version of vista ultimate, it seems to actually load faster on start-up than my bios does. My bios takes about 20 seconds to load and vista about 15. The only problem I've had so far, was trying to install vista with 4 gigs of ram and not having the hot fix that lets you use 4 gigs of ram, it caused a series of very strange issues.